S. K. DUTTA, J-: This appeal arises out of a suit for Letters of Administration with a copy of a will annexed. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : The plaintiff-respondent alleged that late Kashiram Nath who was a resident of village Haldha in the district of Kamrup left a will (which is marked exhibit 1) bequeathing his properties to the plaintiff. .Hence he applied for the grant of Letters of. Administration with a copy of the will annexed in. the Court of the District Delegate. The defendants who claimed that they were the nephews of late Kashiram Nath filed objection and as the matter thus became contentious the petition was refilled in the Court of the District Judge, Lower Assam Districts and it was regis­tered as a suit, and the Objectors were arrayed as defendants. The said defendants filed written statements denying that late, Kashiram Nath exe­cuted any will in favour of the plaintiff. It was further contended that in 1953 late Kashiram Nath executed a registered will by which he be­queathed his properties in favour of one Mahendra Nath. But subsequently, after about two years, this registered will was revoked by the testator. Even if any will in favour of the plaintiff was executed previously, it stood revoked by the subsequent will and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to any Letters of Administration. (2) The will (exhibit .1) which was sought to be propounded by the plaintiff was alleged to have been executed by the testator on 14-2-48 and the testator died on 21-1-58. According to the plain­tiff this was the last will and testament left by late Kashiram Nath. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that late Kashiram execu­ted a registered will in favour of one Mahendra on 12-5^5.3 and that this will was revoked by a registered deed on 21-6-55. It was further con­tended that the original will in favour of Mahendra was torn off by the testator when he executed the deed of revocation and hence a certified copy of the said will was filed and marked exhibit A-The deed of revocation was marked exhibit B-The learned Additional District Judge, Lower Assam Districts held that exhibit 1 was the genuine and last will of late Kashiram Nath and he accordingly granted Letters of Administration with a copy of the will annexed. The present appeal is against this order of the learned Additional District Judge. (3) Mr. Choudhury, appearing on behalf of She defendant-appellants, puts forward two argu­ments. Firstly he submits that the document exhibit .1 which is purported to be the will of late Kashiram Nath cannot be treated as a will-"Will"' has been defined in Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act to mean legal declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires to be carried into effect after his death. From the above statutory definition it is clear that in order to constitute a will there must be g. desire of the testator that the ''declaration should be effectuated after his death. Mr. Choudhury submits that by the document (exhibit 1) Kashiram Nath settled the properties during his life time and not posthumously. We, however, do not think that Mr. Choudhury is correct in this respect. A reading of the document (exhibit 1) will show that it forms two parts. The document is in Assamese and the following is its English translation "To Srijut Baneswar Nath, son of late Bhothow Nath District Darrang, Mauza Lokrai. This will executed by Sri Kashiram Nath son of late Punaram Nath, District Kamrup, Mauza Karara. I am a very old and disabled man without any protection. As I have no kinsman to look after me and maintain me I have adopted the above person as my son. My movable and immoveable properties may be worth about Rs. 3.000/-. To­day I have entrusted these properties to you in the presence of the villagers. You will manage, these properties and maintain me during my life time in comfort. On my death you will perform my religious rites and becoming the owner of all my movable and immoveable properties, you will mutate your name in the Revenue Court in place of mine and thereafter you will enjoy the said properties forever for all generations. If you betray me by not maintaining me during my life time, you will have to be deprived of this property-There will be no objection from me or from .any­body on my behalf against this arrangement. Any such objection will be fruitless. For this purpose, when I am still in sound health, with full knowledge and voluntarily, in presence of villagers I have executed this will. Any such objection will be fruitless. For this purpose, when I am still in sound health, with full knowledge and voluntarily, in presence of villagers I have executed this will. Finis 1344 B. S." (4) It will appear that by the first part of the above document, the property was put in posses­sion and under the management of the plaintiff during the life time of the deceased. In the second part it was directed that the plaintiff would get the properties as an owner on the death of the testator. We do not think that there can be any objection in law if one part of an instrument is operative as will and another part of the same instrument operates as a docu­ment giving possession and management. The desire of the testator to give UP the ownership of to the property to the plaintiff-respondent only on his (testator's) death is quite clear and in such circumstances, exhibit J, falls within the statutory definition of a will. (5) 'This second argument of Mr. Choudhury is that under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act a subsequent will, if it is inconsistent with a previous will, automatically revokes the previous will. In the present case the same properties which were said to have been bequeathed to the plaintiff were subsequently bequeathed to Mahendra and hence the former will became revoked by the latter- This proposition of the Jaw is no doubt correct. But in order to have the effect of revocation the existence and contents of a subsequent will must be proved by evidence of a clear and satisfactory kind. In the present case one witness namely Thanuram (D. ]W. 2) was exa­mined to prove Only the attestation of the subse­quent will (exhibit A). He said that he was an attesting witness of the said will- He did not even disclose if there was any other attesting witness. He also said that (he writer of the will was alive; but this writer was not examined. No explana­tion was forthcoming as to why the evidence of the writer of the alleged will was withheld. (6) Mr. Choudhury points out that when the witness said that he attested the will, this fact was not challenged by the plaintiff. The witness was also not cross-examined regarding the details of attestation. So, according to Mr. No explana­tion was forthcoming as to why the evidence of the writer of the alleged will was withheld. (6) Mr. Choudhury points out that when the witness said that he attested the will, this fact was not challenged by the plaintiff. The witness was also not cross-examined regarding the details of attestation. So, according to Mr. Choudhury, it must be assumed that there was proper attesta­tion by the witness. In this regard he relies on a decision of the Nagpur High Court in Kuwarlal Arnritlal v. Rekhlal Koduram AIR .1950 Nag 83. But the said decision is not of any assistance to Mr. Chouhury. In that case the point at issue was whether a mortgage deed was attested or not- The execution of that deed was established by sufficient evidence. In the present case the execution of they alleged subsequent will (exhibit A) has not been established. Even P. W. 2 Thanuram does not say that he saw the testator signing the will in his presence. (7) As I have said above P.' W. 2 Thanuram simply said that he attested the will. The definition of "attested" as given in Section 3 of ''he Transfer of property Act requires that the attest­ing witness should see the executants sign or mark the document or someone on his behalf do so or receive a personal acknowledgement from the executant and' should sign the instrument in the presence of the executant. In the present case the scribe was not examined and at the Same time D- W. 2 Thanuram also did not say whether he saw Kashiram executing the document of not. In these circumstances exhibit A cannot be said to have been proved. (8) The genuineness of the document exhibit 1 is not questioned by the objectors. The contestation is that this document does not constitute a will and that even if it did constitute a will, it was revoked by a subsequent will. These argu­ments having failed, the appeal must be dismiss­ed- We accordingly dismiss it with costs. (9) G. MEHROTRA, C. J. : I agree. Appeal dismissed-